sorry for the late reply... Been busy recenently.
Am Sonntag, den 25.09.2016, 12:32 -0400 schrieb Neil Roeth:
> Hi, Tobi,
> The removal of jade, sp and openjade1.3 is coming
> along. Openjade1.3
> is done, it was actually removed from testing but there were no more
> dependencies on it. I was focusing recently on the sp binary
> and most of those dependencies have been switched to opensp. Jade is
> There are tracking bugs already, 811310 and 811312.
> Aboot and iputils have bugs with patches open to change sp to opensp.
> Can you explain the output below? I guess "dak rm jade" means remove
> jade, while the -n means not to actually do it (no act). What does
> mean? Does the command apply to the jade source package or the
> package? I'm guessing source since sp appears in the list and it is
> binary package built from the jade source package.
The command checks what would happen if you remove jade from the
archives, a convenient way to check reverse dependencies you have on
> On 09/25/2016 07:04 AM, Tobias Frost wrote:
> > Hi Neil,
> > how is the removal going?
> > I was wondering if there should be a dedicated bug to track the
> > status
> > of the progess? What do you think?
> > A "dak rm -Rn jade" yields to:
> > # Broken Depends:
> > xmldiff: xmldiff-xmlrev
> > # Broken Build-Depends:
> > aboot: sp
> > alex: jade
> > datapacker: jade
> > dejagnu: jade
> > gnome-packagekit: sp
> > gstreamer1.0: jade (>= 1.2.1)
> > iputils: sp
> > kannel: jade
> > libetpan: jade
> > lprng-doc: jade
> > mozart: sp
> > pyepl: jade
> > scons-doc: jade
> > --
> > tobi
> > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 21:00:50 -0400 Neil Roeth <n...@debian.org>
> > wrote:
> > > I intend to remove this package from Debian rather than update
> > it. The
> > > Debian packages openjade/opensp can be used instead. I will file
> > > bugs
> > > against any packages that depend on jade and give them some time
> > > to
> > be
> > > updated before I file the actual removal bug for jade.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Neil Roeth
> > >
> > >
> > >